U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5559 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=63 ------------------------------------------------------- ************** Statistical Tables ************** Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007–12 - Statistical Tables Ramona R. Rantala and Allen J. Beck, BJS Statisticians ************************************************************ In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile facilities. Of these, 104 were substantiated based on follow-up investigation. More than half (61%) of all allegations involved staff sexual misconduct or staff sexual harassment directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender. Administrators of state juvenile correctional facilities reported slightly more than 4,900 allegations from 2007 to 2012, including 906 allegations of nonconsensual acts, 1,235 allegations of abusive sexual contact, 2,307 allegations of staff sexual misconduct, and 474 allegations of staff sexual harassment. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which was renamed the Survey of Sexual Victimization in 2013. Each year, the survey includes all state juvenile systems and a sample of locally and privately operated juvenile facilities. In 2008, juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country were added to the survey. (See Methodology for more information about the systems and facilities from which data were collected.) On behalf of BJS, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau mailed survey forms to correctional administrators in state juvenile systems, juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country, and a sample of locally and privately operated juvenile correctional facilities. The administrators provided summary counts of allegations and substantiated incidents for each survey year. They also completed a separate form for each substantiated incident, providing details about the victim, perpetrator, and circumstances surrounding the incident. Administrators were given the option of mailing back a completed form or completing it on the Internet. Data collection forms can be accessed on the BJS website. The SSV has annually collected official records on allegations and substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth and staff-on-youth sexual victimization since 2004. Past reports of sexual victimization in juvenile facilities include-- * Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2005–06 (NCJ 215337, BJS web, July 2008). * Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333, BJS web, July 2005). The SSV is one of a number of BJS data collections that are conducted to meet the mandates of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79). BJS also collects data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization directly from victims through surveys of youth held in state juvenile systems and locally or privately operated facilities that hold adjudicated youth under state contract. Past reports based on victim self- reports include-- * Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 (NCJ 241708, BJS web, June 2013). * Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008–09 (NCJ 228416, BJS web, January 2010). Each sexual act, as defined by BJS, is classified by the perpetrators who carried it out (i.e., inmate or staff) and the type of act. Administrators provided counts for each of the four types of sexual victimization that occurred during the prior calendar year: youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, youth- on-youth abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment. (See text box, Defining sexual victimization.) The statistical tables that follow provide counts of allegations and substantiated incidents by type of victimization for every jurisdiction and facility in the 2007–12 surveys. Each table includes a measure of population size (based on the number of youth held at yearend) as a basis of comparison; however, the survey results should not be used to rank systems or facilities. Variations in the number of allegations and substantiated incidents may reflect differences in definitions and reporting criteria as well as variations in procedures for recording allegations and in the thoroughness of subsequent investigations. These tables accompany the BJS report, Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12 (NCJ 249145, BJS web, January 2016), which provides national estimates and rates of sexual victimization and an in-depth examination of substantiated incidents covering the number and characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of the injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. ******************************************************* ****************************** Defining sexual victimization ****************************** To define sexual victimization under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79), the Bureau of Justice Statistics uses uniform definitions that classify each sexual act by the perpetrator who carried out the incident (i.e., youth or staff) and the type of act. Youth-on-youth sexual victimization involves sexual contact with a person without his or her consent or with a person who cannot consent or refuse. Nonconsensual sexual acts are the most serious victimizations, and include-- * contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight; or * contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or * penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object. Abusive sexual contacts are less serious victimizations, and are categorized by-- * intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person; and * the intent to sexually exploit (rather than to harm or debilitate). Staff-on-youth sexual victimization includes both consensual and nonconsensual acts perpetrated on a youth by staff. Staff includes an employee, volunteer, contractor, official visitor, or other agency representative. Family, friends, and other visitors are excluded. Staff sexual misconduct includes any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender by staff, including romantic relationships. Such acts include— * intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; or * completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts; or occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification. Staff sexual harassment includes repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to a juvenile or youthful offender by staff. Such statements include-- * demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or * repeated profane or obscene language or gestures. ********************************************************* **************** Methodology **************** Sampling designs ****************** The Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), conducted each year from 2007 to 2012, included all state-operated juvenile residential placement facilities used to house juveniles and youthful offenders, regardless of age or reason for placement. Residential placement facilities include detention centers; training schools; long-term secure facilities; reception or diagnostic centers; group homes or halfway houses; boot camps; ranches; forestry camps, wilderness or marine programs, or farms; runaway or homeless shelters; and residential treatment centers for juveniles. The survey relied on the Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), which the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention conducts in alternating years. The JRFC in 2006, 2008, and 2010 was used as a sampling frame for the SSV in 2007, 2009, and 2011. The CJRP in 2007, 2010, and 2011 was used for the SSV in 2008, 2010, and 2012. In each year, the SSV samples included all facilities within the juvenile correctional systems operated by the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Based on the JRFC and CJRP, the SSV included 501 state-operated juvenile facilities in 2007, 495 in 2008, 473 in 2009, 450 in 2010, 450 in 2011, and 422 in 2012. In each year beginning in 2008, the survey also included all juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country. Based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Survey of Jails in Indian Country, facilities that held only juveniles were determined to be eligible. There were 20 juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country in the SSV in 2008, 19 in 2009, 18 in 2010, 16 in 2011, and 20 in 2012. Separate samples of locally and privately operated facilities were drawn in accordance with the requirement that BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10 percent of all facilities covered under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79). In each year, 330 locally or privately operated facilities were selected. In the 2012 survey, facilities were first grouped into locally operated facilities (623) and privately operated facilities (1,003) and sampled independently. Of the 330 nonstate facilities in the sample, 35 locally operated facilities and 48 privately operated facilities were selected because they were the largest in their respective states. The remaining sample was allocated proportionally across seven strata that were defined by type of facility and region: (1) detention facilities, Midwest; (2) detention facilities, Northeast; (3) detention facilities, South; (4) detention facilities, West; (5) local noncommitment facilities; (6) local commitment facilities; and (7) privately operated facilities. Based on the number of persons assigned to beds, 17 nonstate detention facilities, 4 locally operated facilities, and 8 private facilities were too large compared to other facilities in their strata and were selected with certainty. The remaining facilities were selected systematically with probabilities proportionate to size: * stratum 1: 23 (of 154) facilities * stratum 2: 7 (of 64) facilities * stratum 3: 22 (of 149) facilities * stratum 4: 22 (of 106) facilities * stratum 5: 3 (of 33) facilities * stratum 6: 30 (of 141) facilities * stratum 7: 111 (of 867) facilities. Similar sampling procedures were employed in all other survey years for locally and privately operated juvenile facilities. Survey participation ********************** All state systems and the District of Columbia participated in the survey in the 6 years of data collection. During the 5 years of data collection in Indian country, three juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: two in 2008 and one in 2009. One facility did not respond to the survey: * Gerald Tex Fox Justice Center Juvenile Detention, New Town, ND (2009 and 2011). During the 6 years, 14 locally operated juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: 1 in 2007, 5 in 2009, 2 in 2010, 5 in 2011, and 1 in 2012. Two facilities did not respond to the survey: * Camp Glenn Rockey, San Dimas, CA (2012) * Dorothy Kirby Center, Los Angeles, CA (2009). During the 6 years, 29 privately operated juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: 9 in 2007, 8 in 2008, 3 in 2009, 2 in 2010, and 7 in 2011. Eighteen facilities did not respond to the survey: * Big Brothers Home Away from Home #2, Courtland, AL (2011) * Bonnie Brae Farms, Liberty Corner, NJ (2009) * Carmela House Girl’s Detention, Feura Bush, NY (2010) * Catholic Charities Services (Parmadale), Cleveland, OH (2009) * Eckerd Youth Development Center, Clearwater, FL (2009) * Excelsior Youth Center, Aurora, CO (2007) * Harmony Center, Baton Rouge, LA (2009) * Harmony Hill School, Chepachet, RI (2007) * High Point School, Pittsfield, MA (2008) * Hilo Emergency Shelter, Hilo, HI (2007 and 2008) * Madison Center for Children, South Bend, IN (2009) * Newton Campus, Wichita, KS (2009) * Pathways, Kern County, TX (2009) * St Gabriel’s Hall, Audubon, PA (2010) * Three Springs, Mountain Home, ID (2009, 2010, and 2011) * Three Springs Residential Treatment Center, Courtland, AL (2008) * Youth Bridge Therapeutic Group Home and Substance Abuse Program, Fayetteville, AL (2011) * Youth Farm Campus, Peoria, IL (2009). Reports of sexual victimization ********************************** Since BJS first developed uniform definitions of sexual victimization, juvenile correctional administrators have enhanced their abilities to report uniform data on sexual victimization. In 2012, administrators in all 49 state juvenile systems and the District of Columbia recorded both attempted and completed nonconsensual sexual acts (versus completed acts only). Arkansas did not report any state-level data after it placed all of its youth in locally or privately operated juvenile facilities. Administrators in 47 state juvenile systems and the District of Columbia were also able to report allegations of abusive sexual contact separately from nonconsensual sexual acts, an increase of two systems since 2007. All state juvenile systems were able to report data on staff sexual misconduct using survey definitions. Two systems were unable to separate staff sexual harassment from misconduct, and one did not track allegations of staff sexual harassment in a central database. Administrators of locally operated juvenile facilities were less likely than state juvenile administrators to report sexual victimization based on the definitions provided. Nearly a fifth (18%) of the 148 locally operated juvenile correctional facilities selected in 2012 did not record abusive sexual contacts separately from the more serious nonconsensual sexual acts. One local juvenile correctional facility did not record allegations of abusive sexual contact, and one based counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on completed acts only. All local juvenile correctional facilities kept records on allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts, and all facilities counted all allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts (rather than counting only those that were substantiated). Most administrators of local juvenile facilities were able to report staff-on-youth sexual victimization based on the SSV definitions. Administrators of all local facilities except one recorded allegations of staff sexual misconduct, while one recorded substantiated incidents only. One did not record allegations of staff sexual harassment. Sixteen percent were unable to separate allegations of staff sexual harassment from allegations of staff sexual misconduct. Administrators of all sampled privately operated juvenile facilities except one kept records on allegations of both types of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (i.e., nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contact). A quarter of these administrators were unable to separate abusive sexual contact from nonconsensual sexual acts. One privately operated facility recorded only substantiated incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts, and two recorded completed acts only. All administrators of privately operated facilities kept records on staff-on-youth sexual abuse. Four recorded only substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct, and 32 (18%) were unable to separate staff sexual harassment from staff sexual misconduct. The published counts in this report include systems and facilities that did not meet the SSV reporting standards. Systems and facilities that did not meet the reporting criteria are noted in the tables. Companion BJS report on sexual victimization ********************************************** National estimates are provided in a companion report, Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12 (NCJ 249145, BJS web, January 2016). In each year, survey responses were weighted to produce national estimates for all locally and privately operated juvenile facilities. The companion report further aggregates the weighted data for the 6 years to provide detailed estimates of the number of allegations by type and facility type, and the outcome of the investigations by type of incident and facility type. Allegations that have been substantiated are then analyzed in depth by type of incident, victim and perpetrator characteristics, circumstances surrounding the incident, type of pressure or force, impact on victims and perpetrators, and sanctions imposed on perpetrators. ***************** List of tables ***************** Section 1. State juvenile correctional systems ************************************************** Table 1. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by state juvenile systems, by type of victimization, 2012 Table 2. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by state juvenile systems, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 3. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by state juvenile systems, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 4. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by state juvenile systems, by type of victimization, 2009 Table 5. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by state juvenile systems, by type of victimization, 2008 Table 6. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by state juvenile systems, by type of victimization, 2007 Section 2. Public local juvenile correctional facilities ********************************************************* Table 7. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2012 Table 8. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 9. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 10. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2009 Table 11. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2008 Table 12. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2007 Table 13. Local juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2012 Table 14. Local juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2011 Table 15. Local juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2010 Table 16. Local juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2009 Table 17. Local juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2008 Table 18. Local juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2007 Section 3. Privately operated juvenile correctional facilities *************************************************************** Table 19. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2012 Table 20. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 21. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 22. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2009 Table 23. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2008 Table 24. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated juvenile correctional authorities, by type of victimization, 2007 Table 25. Privately operated juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2012 Table 26. Privately operated juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2011 Table 27. Privately operated juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2010 Table 28. Privately operated juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2009 Table 29. Privately operated juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2008 Table 30. Privately operated juvenile correctional authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2007 Section 4. Juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country ************************************************************** Table 31. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by juvenile correctional authorities in Indian country, by type of victimization, 2012 Table 32. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by juvenile correctional authorities in Indian country, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 33. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by juvenile correctional authorities in Indian country, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 34. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by juvenile correctional authorities in Indian country, by type of victimization, 2009 Table 35. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by juvenile correctional authorities in Indian country, by type of victimization, 2008 ************************************************************* The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is director. This report was written by Ramona R. Rantala and Allen J. Beck. Anastasios “Tom” Tsoutis verified the report. Greta B. Clark carried out data collection and processing, under the supervision of Stephen G. Simoncini, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Linda Gehring and Patricia Torreyson assisted in the data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the facility samples and provided sampling weights. Irene Cooperman and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. January 2016, NCJ 249143 ************************************************************* ************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************** ********************** 1/19/2016/JER/12:55pm **********************